Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1954Bom38; (1953)55BOMLR481
1. This is a suit against a trespasser. 2. The plaintiff is the sole surviving trustee and executrix of the will of one Rahim Valimahomed, and as such claims to be the owner of a bungalow known as Rahim Mansions situate at Poona. Her case is that by an agreement executed in Bombay and dated 6-3-1948, she agreed to allow and permit the defendant to use and occupy the bungalow on the basis of leave and licence and on terms and conditions contained in that writing. The period agreed upon was eleven months and the license was to expire on 28-2-1949. There was correspondence between parties in the course of which the defendant took up the attitude that he was not a mere licensee but a tenant of the plaintiff. He declined to vacate the premises and hence the suit. 3. The reliefs sought 'inter alia' are (a) that the defendant, his family, dependants, servants and agents may be ordered to remove themselves from the said premises together with all their belongings, (b) that the defendant, his f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1953Bom269; (1953)55BOMLR329; ILR1953Bom784
Chagla, C.J.(1) A very interesting question under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act arises on this revision application. The opponents applied under the Bombay Agricul-tural Debtors Relief Act to have the debt of the petitioner adjusted. The debt was a mortgage debt. The Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act Court took accounts and adjusted the debt at Rs. 415 and the Court ultimately passed an award on 31-1-1951. Under the award, the petitioner was given possession of the mortgaged property. On 16-4-1951, the opponents Sled a suit against the petitioner for recovering the rent of the mortgaged property. The suit came to be filed under the following circumstances. The mortgage which the petitioner had executed in favour of the opponents was a possessory mortgage. Possession having been given to the opponents, they as mortgagees executed a lease in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner was in possession of the property as a tenant of the opponents. Therefore, the suit fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1953CriLJ1267
ORDERHemeon, J.1. The applicant Ambadas was ordered under Section 488, Criminal P.C. by the First Class Magistrate, Nagpur, to pay Rs. 40-0-0 per mensem as maintenance to his wife Annapurna-bai (non-applicant); & his appln. for revision of that order was dismissed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. He has now come up in revision to this Court.2. The parties were married over 25 years ago and had no issue. The applicant remarried in 1935 and his second wife, who was also childless, died in 1945. Shortly afterwards, he married again and had a daughter. For the last 3 years, the non-applicant lived separately in a portion of his house; and her case was to the effect that he ill-treated her on several occasions. Finally, according to her, he on 5.1.1950 attacked her and drove her from the house. On 8.5.1950, he falsely reported to the police that she had stolen ornaments from him.3. His version was that she began of her own volition to live separately from him in the house, al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1954CriLJ15
ORDERHemeon, J.1. The applicants Banshilal and Nathuram were convicted and each sentenced to undergo 2 concurrent terms, one of 3 months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 186 and the other of 6 months rigorous imprisonment under Section 506, Penal Code, by the Second Class Magistrate, Sakti; and the District Magistrate, Raigarh, affirmed the convictions but reduced the sentences to 2 concurrent sentences of 6 weeks rigorous imprisonment in each case. The applicants have now come up in revision to this Court.2. The prosecution case was, briefly stated, as follows. On 7-9-1951, Narsingprasad (P. W. 1), range officer, went with the search warrant Exhibit P-1, which had been issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Raigarh Division to the house of the applicant Nathuram in order to search for young bamboo shoots which had been stolen. Nathuram did not permit him to search the house and uttered The following threat:If any body will carry out the search, I will kill him; and if any body e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1953Bom412; (1953)55BOMLR465; ILR1953Bom948
Gajendragadkak, J.1. The short question of law which this appeal raises for our decision is whether a compromise decree which contains a term contrary to the provisions of Section 10, T. P. Act is a nullity and can be ignored without setting it aside. This question arises in this way. In Civil Suit No. 341 of 1926, a claim was made by the present defendants 1 and 2 against the predecessors of the present plaintiff for accounts. Their allegation was that the defendant to that suit was their guardian and had not rendered accounts. Between the guardian and his wards, a compromise decree was passed and by this decree the guardian conveyed to the wards certain immovable property. The compromise decree provided that it is declared that the plaintiffs, meaning the wards, and their descendants alone shall enjoy the said land and the building, that they should not alienate the same by lease etc. and that they should let it out only to their caste people. If in contravention of these conditions ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1954Bom47; (1953)55BOMLR658; ILR1953Bom955
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal raises a short and interesting question as to the nature of the rights which a Hindu widow acquires under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, No. 18 of 1937. The property in suit consists of lands situated at Vadral in the taluka of Chikodi. These properties originally belonged to the undivided family of Shivappa and his son Laxman. Lax-man died on 13-3-1945, leaving behind him his widow Yelawwa. She is plaintiff 2 in this suit. On 8-3-1946, Shivappa executed a deed of gift in respect of the properties in suit in favour of his daughter Laxmawwa. She is defendant 4 in the suit. On 9-3-1946, Shivappa adopted Lax-man belonging to the branch of his separated brother also known by the name of Laxman. On 19-4-1946, Yelawwa adopted Shivappa, who is plaintiff 1. On 11-8-1946, Shivappa died leaving surviving behind him his widow Yelawwa. Yelawwa is defendant 1 in the present suit. The daughter-in-law of Shivappa and her adopted son...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1953Bom366; (1953)55BOMLR383
ORDER(1) This revision application arises out of an order passed, by the learned Presidency Magistrate, 3rd Court, Bombay, refusing to direct recovery of the amount due under an order passed for maintenance in favour of the petitioner and her children under Section 488, Criminal P. C. The learned Magistrate has with some reluctance passed an order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner.(2) The few facts which are necessary to understand the grounds on which the learned Magistrate has dismissed the application are these:-- The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. She filed an application in the Court of the Resident Magistrate, First Class, Kirkee Cantonment, Poona, for an order under S.488, Criminal P.C., for maintenance of herself and of her three children. On 19-11-1949, the learned Resident Magistrate passed the following order:'I order that the respondent shall pay for maintenance of the applicant and her three children an amount of rupees one hundred under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1953Bom311; (1953)55BOMLR323; ILR1953Bom842
Chagla, C.J.(1) This is a petition by a resident of Jalgaon who is a tax payer of the Jalgaon Municipality and a voter in one of the wards, challenging certain provisions of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, which reserves seats for women in the election to the Jalgaon Municipality. The relevant provision of the Act is Section 10(1)(c), which provides that the State Government shall, from time to time, generally or specially for each Municipality, make rules consistent with this Act (and we are quoting the relevant part of the Sub-section) prescribing the number and extent of the wards to be constituted in each municipal borough, the number of councillors to be elected by each ward and the number of seats, if any, to be reserved for the representation of women; and pursuant to this Sub-section Government have made rules reserving four seats for women out of the 35 elected seats for the Jalgaon Municipality, and the contention of the petitioner is that this reservation offends ag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1953Bom415; (1953)55BOMLR478; ILR1953Bom836
ORDER1. This is a petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition directing the State of Bombay, who are respondent No. 1 and the Director of Rehabilitation, who is respondent 2, from enforcing an order dated 11-6-1952, made under Section 7, Bombay Refugees Act, 1948, against the petitioner. The order requires that the petitioner shall leave the Chembur colony with all his belongings within a period of 3 days from the date of the service of the order and shall not re-enter the said colony. 2. The order is challenged on various grounds, but there is one ground which goes to the very root of the matter, viz., that Section 7 of the Act under which the order was made was 'ultra vires' the Bombay Legislature. Since, in my opinion, this contention appears to be well-founded, it is not necessary to consider the rest of the grounds on which the petition is based. 3. Now, the Bombay Refugees Act, 1948, being Act 22 of 1948, was published on 29-3-1948. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1953Bom332; (1953)55BOMLR341; ILR1953Bom710
Chagla, C.J.(1) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ against the Revenue Tribunal which held that the landlord had not terminated the tenancy of his tenant although the tenant was in default in payment of rent because no notice terminating the tenancy had been given. Mr. Patwardhan relies on a decision of this Court given in --'Mallikarjun v. Satyanarayan', : AIR1953Bom207 , and in that decision we pointed out that the Legislature did not make it incumbent upon the landlord to give notice to his tenant when default had been committed in payment of rent. Mr. Chitale with his usual tenacity has made a valiant attempt at distinguishing that judgment and trying to persuade us that, as far as the present case is concerned, we should not follow that decision.(2) Now, what Mr. Chitale points out to us is that when we gave that decision our attention was not drawn to Section 30, Tenancy Act, and Section 30 provides :'Save as otherwise provided in Sub-section ...
Tag this Judgment!